Trump says not happy with Iran, may have to use force

As Donald Trump’s 10-to-15-day deadline for a “meaningful” deal with Iran enters its decisive phase, Iranian officials appear to be reframing diplomacy as a commercial opportunity rather than a strategic concession.

The Financial Times reported on February 26—as talks were underway in Geneva—that Tehran had offered access to major energy and mineral resources in an effort to steer Washington away from military escalation.

This is a shrewd pitch to the current White House. Trump has long favored foreign-policy outcomes he can present as concrete transactions, and Iran appears to be speaking directly to that instinct.

By holding out the prospect of access to one of the world’s largest underdeveloped energy systems, Tehran is trying to make de-escalation look like a win for American business rather than a concession to an adversary. It is hoping that profit would help create a future constituency for restraint in the United States.

In that sense, the proposal is about more than upstream contracts. It is an effort to reshape Washington’s political calculus.

Iran can make such a pitch because the underlying resource base is genuinely exceptional.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, Iran holds the world’s third-largest proven crude oil reserves and the second-largest proven natural gas reserves. The agency’s most recent country brief notes that full sanctions relief could raise output significantly within months.

Most of Iran’s crude and condensate exports already go to China, underscoring both the scale of the prize and the distortions created by sanctions. Tehran is trying to turn geological weight into diplomatic leverage at a moment of vulnerability.

That is also why the offer should be treated with caution. A regime confident that time is on its side does not place strategic sectors in front of an American president who is openly threatening it.

Trump has warned that “bad things” will happen if no meaningful deal is reached within roughly two weeks. The third round of talks ended without agreement, and major gaps remain over the terms of any settlement. The offer is being made because the central dispute remains unresolved, not because it is close to resolution.

On February 25, the US Treasury sanctioned more than 30 individuals, entities, and vessels tied to Iran’s shadow fleet and networks supporting ballistic-missile and advanced weapons procurement.

That is not the legal environment in which American firms begin planning long-term upstream projects. Even if some restrictions were waived, companies would still face compliance risks, financing obstacles, insurance complications, and the danger that any opening could be reversed by the next administration.

For corporate boards, Iran is not simply a market with upside. It is a sanctions minefield. American firms may also remember how quickly Iranian openings can collapse.

During the JCPOA window, Boeing signed a $16.6 billion agreement to sell 80 aircraft to IranAir, widely seen as a symbol of potential commercial normalization. The reimposition of sanctions after Washington left the nuclear deal turned that optimism into a lesson in sovereign and political risk.

Nor is the Venezuela analogy reassuring. Exxon chief Darren Woods was reported to have called the country “uninvestable” without major legal reforms even after Washington encouraged US companies to return.

If Venezuela appears risky even with direct US political backing, Iran looks far more uncertain.

Iranian officials have said they did not offer to suspend enrichment and that the United States did not explicitly demand zero enrichment in earlier exchanges. Yet Washington’s broader position remains that any agreement must prevent Iran from moving toward a nuclear weapon.

Reuters reported on February 26 that the United States is still seeking strict caps on enrichment and stockpiles, while the Associated Press said Iran remains resistant to shipping enriched uranium abroad.

This is not a minor technical disagreement. No serious US company is likely to regard Iran as bankable while that gulf exists. Investors move when the political architecture is credible, not when it is still being contested in Geneva hotel rooms.

That is why Iran’s “commercial bonanza” matters as leverage but not yet as policy. It is a sophisticated attempt to buy time, flatter Trump’s instincts, and raise the perceived cost of escalation by dangling future profits before Washington.

It may help preserve diplomacy for another round and give the White House an off-ramp it can market as commercially rational rather than strategically soft. But it is not a breakthrough. Oil and mining rights alone cannot override sanctions law, congressional hostility, nuclear mistrust, or the coercive logic that still governs US policy toward Iran.

Tehran is offering treasure. The problem is that the minefield around it remains fully intact.

A newly released undercover video shown in a Brooklyn courtroom captures an alleged Iran-linked operative describing a 2024 plot to assassinate Donald Trump.

The operative who prosecutors say tried to hire two men to kill Trump for $5,000 upfront demonstrated the plan by placing a vape pen on a napkin to signify his “target,” the hidden camera video released by the New York Post shows.

“This is the target. How will it die?” Asif Merchant said in the meeting.

Merchant, 47, a Pakistani national who entered the United States in April 2024, is accused of attempting to recruit individuals he believed were hired killers.

Prosecutors said he offered cash payments and discussed staging a protest near a campaign rally to create confusion and allow the attackers to escape.

Continue reading

The operative who prosecutors say tried to hire two men to kill Trump for $5,000 upfront demonstrated the plan by placing a vape pen on a napkin to signify his “target,” the hidden camera video released by the New York Post shows.

“This is the target. How will it die?” Asif Merchant said in the meeting.

Merchant, 47, a Pakistani national who entered the United States in April 2024, is accused of attempting to recruit individuals he believed were hired killers.

Prosecutors said he offered cash payments and discussed staging a protest near a campaign rally to create confusion and allow the attackers to escape.

• 

  Iranian official says Trump could face drone attack at Mar-a-Lago

Although Trump was not explicitly named in the recorded exchanges, court documents show that he – then a leading candidate – was the intended target, the Post reported.

Prosecutors allege Merchant believed Trump’s policies had harmed Muslim-majority countries and acted with backing from individuals allegedly connected to Iran.

The scheme began to unravel when a Pakistani-American acquaintance, a former US Army linguist, alerted authorities after growing suspicious of Merchant’s plans. The FBI then arranged undercover meetings that were secretly recorded.

Merchant was arrested in July 2024 at an airport while attempting to leave the United States, authorities said.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges including murder for hire and attempting to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries. If convicted, he faces a potential life sentence.

In November 2024, the US Department of Justice unsealed criminal charges regarding a thwarted plot by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to assassinate Donald Trump prior to the 2024 presidential election.

• 

  Iranian clerical call to kill Trump spreads, attracts alleged fundraising

Trump has been a target for assassination threats since he ordered the 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force in Iraq.

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi said the agency has been unable to verify the status and location of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium since military strikes by the United States and Israel hit several nuclear sites in June.

The IAEA said it has not been granted access to Iran’s four declared enrichment facilities and has therefore lost “continuity of knowledge” over previously declared nuclear material at affected sites. As a result, it cannot verify whether Iran has suspended all enrichment-related activities or confirm the current size, composition or whereabouts of its enriched uranium stockpile.

Grossi said his agency “will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful” until Iran improves its cooperation.

Inspectors have observed regular vehicular activity at bombed sites, including the underground complex at Isfahan and the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, through satellite imagery. However, Grossi said that without on-site inspections the agency cannot determine the nature or purpose of those activities.

According to the IAEA, Iran holds 440.9 kg (972 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60% purity, a short technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Grossi has previously said that while such material does not mean Iran has a nuclear weapon, it could, in theory, be sufficient for multiple bombs if further enriched.

The warning comes as Iran and the United States continue indirect talks over Tehran’s nuclear activities. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.

Some of Iran’s most highly enriched uranium, enriched to up to 60% purity, was stored in an underground area at its nuclear site in Isfahan, the UN nuclear watchdog said in a confidential report seen by Reuters on Friday.

It is the first time the International Atomic Energy Agency has specified where uranium enriched to that level, close to weapons grade, has been kept.

The entrance to the tunnel complex was hit in US and Israeli military strikes in June, diplomats said, but the underground facility appears to have remained largely unharmed.